BADRI PRASAD Vs. JAGAN NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is from the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Ganganagar, dated 7th March, 1963, and arises out of a suit commenced by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 10,500/- as damages for malicious prosecution.

(2.) THE defendant is a retired cashier of Tehsil Hanumangarh and on 25th December, 1958, he made a report to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bika-ner, that he had been cheated by the plaintiff. It was alleged in the report that the plaintiff by deceit and false representation on the promise of securing quota of sugar in partnership obtained from him a sum of Rs. 11900. This money was supplied by the defendant to the plaintiff on various dates. THE plaintiff did not obtain the sugar quota in the name of the partnership as promised but obtained it in his own name and that of his son namely Badriprasad Madanlal. THE plaintiff sold some sugar and kept on bluffing the defendant that he would give him his share of profits and return the amount invested but ultimately denied having received any amount from him and that he had any share in that sugar business THE police after investigation submitted a challan under sec. 420 I. P. G. against the plaintiff who on trial was covicted by the trial Magistrate but on appeal to the Sessions Judge he was acquitted. Plaintiff's case is that the prosecution against him was launched by the defendant on account of malice and that he had no reasonable and probable cause for instituting the criminal proceedings. He has claimed a sum of Rs. 10,500 as damages for malicious prosecution. THE defendant's plea is that he had not launched the prosecution without any reasonable and probable cause. THE allegation of malice is also denied and it is stated that the plaintiff has not suffered any damages.

(3.) IT way be stated here that the question whether the sum of Rs. 11,900 was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff for the purchase of quota of sugar is also the subject matter of another civil litigation in which the defendant has filed the suit for rendition of accounts against the plaintiff. I am informed that the suit has been decreed by the trial court and the appeal against the said decree is pending in this Court. I, therefore, do not propose to examine the evidence regarding the payment of money, as if the question of payment of money is actually in issue before me. I only wish to examine evidence on this point so as to arrive at the conclusion whether the prosecution was launched without any reasonable and probable cause. Any observations made by me in the course of this judgment on that point should, therefore, not bind the court deciding the civil appeal between the parties.